A push by Eliot Spitzer's gubernatorial running mate, David Paterson, to restrict police officers from using deadly physical force in the line of fire has opened a rift between the Harlem state senator and the state attorney general.

Yesterday, Mr. Spitzer, the leading Democratic candidate for governor, disavowed a bill introduced by Mr. Paterson that would prohibit police officers from shooting suspects with the intent to kill and would hold the officers liable for second-degree manslaughter, which carries a maximum prison sentence of 15 years.

"Eliot is not in favor of this revision to the penal code," the campaign manager for Mr. Spitzer, Ryan Toohey, said. "When David agreed to be Eliot's running mate, we knew they wouldn't be in lockstep agreement with each other. That's part of how good relationships work."

Mr. Paterson's bill, which is intended to protect minority criminal suspects from being killed by police officers unnecessarily, has provoked a furious reaction from New York State and city police groups, which say the senator's legislation would handcuff police officers and ultimately leave the public in greater danger.

Conceivably, under Mr. Paterson's law, the heralded police officer who killed the man who shot to death City Council Member James Davis on July 23, 2003, would be indicted for second-degree manslaughter.

Police groups also point to the recent slew of shootings, some of them fatal, of New York City police officers as evidence of the need for policeman to have the leeway to use deadly force to protect themselves.

The head of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, which represents 10,000 active and retired New York City police sergeants, yesterday described Mr. Paterson's bill as "lunacy."

"It's poor judgment on the part of Paterson to even initiate something like this," said the president of the association, Edward Mullins, who said he was writing a letter to Mr. Paterson denouncing the bill.

"In light of the police shootings and terrorism, why in the world would you create a bill that would actually tie the hands of police officers?... I see lunacy in creating a bill like this," he said. The heads of the New York State Association of Chiefs of Police and the New York State Troopers Police Benevolent Association also have criticized Mr. Paterson's bill, the Daily News reported.

Mr. Paterson, an influential black politician who has served as the senate's minority leader since 2002 and who was tapped by Mr. Spitzer to be the attorney general's lieutenant governor running mate last month, is seeking to amend the state penal code by putting severe restrictions on the amount of force police officers can use in the course of defending themselves from bodily harm, or detaining a suspect who is resisting arrest or trying to escape.

Under Mr. Paterson's legislation, police officers would be permitted to use the minimal amount of force to "needed to stop" a suspect. For instance, according to the bill memo, an officer who is under attack would be required to shoot a suspect in the leg or arm if such actions would stop the suspect from harming the officer or escaping.

"Further, the number of times an officer shoots a person should not exceed the minimal number necessary to stop the person. If one shot accomplishes the purpose, it is neither necessary or appropriate for an officer to empty his barrel," the bill memo states.

The Daily News reported that Mr. Paterson authored the bill in reaction to the acquittals in 2000 of four police officers who shot and killed an unarmed West African immigrant, Amadou Diallo, firing 41 bullets and striking Diallo 19 times. The incident was triggered when a police officer mistook a black wallet Diallo was carrying for a gun.

"There is no justification for terminating another's life when a less extreme measure may accomplish the same objective," the bill memo states.

As the law stands, a police officer can use deadly physical force if a suspect is trying to kill him and the officer cannot safely retreat. An officer is also permitted to kill a suspect who is resisting arrest for a felony involving the use of physical force against a person. An officer is also permitted to kill a suspect who is attempting to escape and possesses a firearm or deadly weapon.

Moments after the Othniel Askew shot and fatally wounded Council Member Davis in the balcony of City Council chambers, the officer, Richard Burt, took aim from below amid the chaos and fired a reported six shots at Askew, striking him four times and killing him instantly. Mayor Bloomberg promoted Mr. Burt to detective and declared him a city hero who saved many lives.

Mr. Burt would be guilty of manslaughter if a jury found that he fired more bullets than he needed to stop Askew or could have stopped him without actually killing him.

A spokesman for Mr. Paterson did not return calls for comment yesterday.

Since Mr. Spitzer announced Mr. Paterson as his running mate, other sharp policy differences have emerged between the two politicians. In particular, Mr. Paterson has said he opposes the death penalty for "spiritual reasons," even for convicted terrorists, while Mr. Spitzer is a proponent of capital punishment. Mr. Paterson has also said he favors tax increases that Mr. Spitzer opposes.

A close observer of Albany politics, Alan Chartock, a SUNY professor of political science emeritus, said he doesn't view Mr. Paterson's bill as a political liability for Mr. Spitzer.

"This is a rather refreshing change from the Pataki administration, where everybody has to march in lockstep," he said. "If it were the other way around, it could be a problem. Everybody knows the governor is the key decision maker in this."

The cardinal rule of pulling, siming, or discharging a weapon is to "Shoot to Kill" you do not "shoot to maim" or "shoot to injure."

Some putz lawyer and politician is going to decide after knowing all the facts with the benefits of 20/20 hindsight, the situation that in a split second a police officer should have known when a scumbag criminal or terrorist was trying to run them over or shoot at them.

My suggestion is to take this idiot, and run him through a few perception-reaction drills to see how easy it is to "shoot-to-wound", and still survive yourself.

Multiple studies have shown that the accuracy of even a seasoned officer (or soldier for that matter) goes down dramatically under the stress of a weapon call or gunfight.

If this thing has any chance of getting approved, I would strongly suggest that you guys start writing your representatives, because the only thing this bill will do is:

1. Disarm officers
2. Put a lot of good officers in jail

And without getting too angry and riling anyone up, what the hell is going on when Florida is allowing it's citizens to shoot just because they "Feel" threatened, but NY is expecting you to use completely nonsensical and dangerous forms of officer restraint.

And anybody got the figures on the number of NY Police Officers who killed suspects last year? I bet I can probably count it on my fingers and toes.

Whenever I had to do my regular POST certification on pistol, rifle and shotgun our instructors always made it clear. We don't shot to kill. We Shoot to stop. We even yell, "Police. Stop." not "Die Scumsucker" before engaging the target. Of course we also trained to aim center mass since we are responsible for every round and need to ensure that we hit the target everytime. We never Shot to kill. If they happen to die after taking a .357 round to the chest then that's on them. At least they Stopped. It's different than walking up to them as they lay bleeding on the ground crying "Oh God. Help me" and blasting them in the forehead. Now THAT would be shooting to kill. Since I'm against public executions by street cops I agree the police shouldn't Shoot To Kill. But they have every right to defend themselves and others by Shooting to Stop.

the police have a hard enough job as is, especially when someone is pointin a gun at them or about to run into them with a vehicle. why should they have to worry about goin to jail themselves for using their gun to protect them. They protect and serve us, so they should have all rights to protect themselves.

this guy sounds like one who never had to work for a living, he wouldn't know what a cop has to go through out on the streets (can't say i do either, i'm not a cop) some people......

Well, someone should mention to this clown something called the femoral artery. a leg shooting (only to wound, of course) can cause a "respectable" citizen to bleed to death as much as a torso shot.
.

Good Lord no, don't tell him that! He'll alter his bill to list all the major arteries and organs that police are not allowed to shoot....

What a freakin' mutt.....

Mr. Burt would be guilty of manslaughter if a jury found that he fired more bullets than he needed to stop Askew or could have stopped him without actually killing him.

Revised Police Procedures manual:

1) Fire one shot at gun-waving respectable citizen (Remember, you may only fire at the extremeties, and if possible attempt to graze without drawing blood).
2) Is citizen still standing?
3) Ask citizen politely if he is quite through resisting at this time, or does he intend to continue to fire at you.
4) If yes, repeat steps 1 through 3......

"I have a dream. It's not a big dream, it's just a little dream. My dream — and I hope you don't find this too crazy — is that I would like the people of this community to feel that if, God forbid, there were a fire, calling the fire department would actually be a wise thing to do. You can't have people, if their houses are burning down, saying, 'Whatever you do, don't call the fire department!' That would be bad."
— C.D. Bales, "Roxanne"

I think I have to agree with Cellblock here regarding weapons training, at least. We are taught center of mass, x2 shots, then one for the head, because (dealing with ships boarding teams) you could pretty much count that "they" would be wearing body armour. Two for the chest, one for the head.

As for the main point of the article... well good luck to the LEO's out there who will be dealing with this one on the street.

I think I have to agree with Cellblock here regarding weapons training, at least. We are taught center of mass, x2 shots, then one for the head, because (dealing with ships boarding teams) you could pretty much count that "they" would be wearing body armour. Two for the chest, one for the head.

Quite true Rick, but it is all just terminology.

A perfectly accurate center of mass shot, with no variables (i.e. body armour) will hit the heart and be fatal 9 out of ten times.

The police are not going to finish with the head shot of course, but the principle is the same. While you may not be "Trying" to kill the individual with a center of mass shot, you are certainly not making any attempt to keep from killing them either.

I dont remember where I first heard the quote, probably some John Wayne movie, but it goes something like:

"Once you take your man down, make sure he stays down."

That has always stuck in my head and it came to the front during our training scenarios. And was enforced too. Our instructors were trained at the US Coast Guard school in San Diego (I think. Down south anyhow).

But then of course until Bosnia/Jugoslavia and Afghanistan, Canadian Peacekeepers were the masters of carrying loaded 30 round magazines in THEIR POCKETS, while on patrol. With the stern warning "Only to be used if actually shot AT."

Good Lord no, don't tell him that! He'll alter his bill to list all the major arteries and organs that police are not allowed to shoot....

What a freakin' mutt.....

Revised Police Procedures manual:

1) Fire one shot at gun-waving respectable citizen (Remember, you may only fire at the extremeties, and if possible attempt to graze without drawing blood).
2) Is citizen still standing?
3) Ask citizen politely if he is quite through resisting at this time, or does he intend to continue to fire at you.
4) If yes, repeat steps 1 through 3......

Amen, Brother. Shoot to kill. One less skell society has to worry about. I'm getting tired of all of these "good kids" who get killed having 7 foot long rap sheets. Always good kids. I'll pass.

I think that this twit has a brother or some other relative in Texas. One of the rocket scientist in Austin wanted to make only certain sworn peace officers able to carry off duty, anytime, anyplace. All others would only be peace officers when on-duty, in uniform, and in their geograhpical jurisdiction. Fire investigators were not included in his original description of a peace officer even though they are sworn peace officers.

I guess that his thoughts were that the bad guys only work 9-5 and will not try to do something outside the norms set forth by the state. Luckly this bill was shot (sorry for the pun) down during the last session. Rumor has it that it will be back again next session. We can only wait and see.

A New York state legislator who is also a candidate for lieutenant governor has withdrawn a bill that would limit police use of deadly force.

Democratic state Sen. David Paterson told the Daily News that he changed his mind about his "shoot to wound" bill after discussing the issue with the head of the state Association of Chiefs of Police.

The proposal was inspired by the death of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed African immigrant who died in a hail of police gunfire. Diallo, challenged by officers who thought he resembled a suspected racist, was trying to pull out his wallet to show his identification. The four officers involved were acquitted of all charges.

"I wanted to try to ensure that such a tragedy would never happen again," Paterson told the News. "While that is still my goal, I realize on reflection that this bill was not the best way to pursue it."

Maybe he should concentrate on some legislation to deal with the cause(s) of the crime(s) and not protecting gun carrying minority thugs. Do something to really help his "people" and not put PO's and the public in jepardy.

Oh, thats right, its not "thier" fault, its society's fault they carry guns and commit violent crimes. Its the Man keepin the "brothers" down.

Hey, its MY fault he was born black, its MY fault hes disenfranchised, its MY doing that put the gun in HIS hands and shot the Police Officer. Is it just me, or does anybody else get these kinda vibes?